Rand Paul: I’m pro-life, but exceptions should be handled case by case

posted at 2:01 pm on March 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

So confused am I by what he’s saying in the clip below that I’m not sure I’ve summed up his position correctly in the headline. The Blaze, wisely, didn’t even try. Their own post on this is simply titled, “CNN Asked Rand Paul About Abortion Exceptions: This Is How He Answered.” Here’s what we know: Not only is Paul pro-life, he just introduced the Life At Conception Act in the Senate, which would overturn Roe via a federal statute aimed at protecting due process for a fetus per Congress’s power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. So far, so good. Simple question from Wolf Blitzer, then: Would he make an exception for pregnancies caused by rape and those that threaten the health of the mother? That’s when things got … complicated.

I would say that, after birth, we’ve decided that when life begins, we have decided that we don’t have exceptions for one-day-olds or a six-month-olds. We don’t ask where they came from or how they came into being.

But it is more complicated, because the rest of it depends on the definition of when life comes in. So I don’t think it’s as simple as checking a box and saying, “Exceptions” or “No exceptions.”

I’ve been there at the beginning of life. I’ve held one pound babies in my hand that I examined their eyes. I’ve been there at the end of life. There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and their doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to. But I think it is important that we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeonhole and say, “Oh, this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family.”

More:

“I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law, let’s say people came more to my way of thinking,” he continued, “there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

There’s more still, but I’ll leave you to the clip for the rest. It kind of sounds like he’s saying that it’s not always clear-cut early in a pregnancy whether “life” has begun yet, but he can’t possibly be saying that. He’s sponsoring the “Life at Conception Act,” for cripes sake. In which case, what’s he saying? Do note that when he ran for senator in 2010, he told Kentucky Right to Life that he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. He never explicitly contradicts that here, but by backing an ad hoc approach that imagines “thousands of exceptions” based on “decisions made privately by families and their doctors,” he sure isn’t affirming it either.

I can only assume this is a particularly strained example of Paul trying once again to walk the line between libertarianism and traditional conservatism. (The second in as many days, in fact.) Trumpeting a “Life at Conception Act” earns him major points with the latter while alienating some of the former, so here he is trying to muddle through back into libertarians’ good graces with lots and lots of case-by-case loopholes. How would you even begin to codify what he’s suggesting here? Is he imagining an anti-abortion law that’s essentially hortatory? And isn’t that effectively pro-choice? (Sure is, says the Atlantic.) What am I missing?

Comments

What I want to know Rand is that you just tried to submit legislation to protect the unborn under the 14th amendment. How does 14th amendment protection become null and void based on how the unborn is conceived?

It’s obvious he was trying to do the most shameless sort of verbal tap-dancing. Maybe it was necessary, given the media’s desire to find another “Akin”. Still, it’s disappointing that a guy as smart as he is, and with an actual medical professional background, can’t capably articulate the argument for pro-life principles.

Why not mention Ann Coulter’s CPAC speech where she stated the Democrats have easily figured the slam dunk for getting their candidates in even with Republican women voting for them, is to jump right to R A P E and despite the fact that over 80 percent of Republicans do not want abortion in the event of rape or incest banned, we seem to be ending up with (the currently unemployed) Akins and (the currently unemployed) Mourdochs.

Abortion Hurts us
I also don’t know how to interpret what he’s saying, but I think he realizes he’s in a tough position or it would be virtually impossible to win if he took the extreme position like Akin and Mourdoch that their should be no exceptions for rape. That “nutcase” position really really repulses close to 80% of the electorate, and if the religious right holds firm and self-righteously to that position it is not good. And if no exceptions for rape is Rand’s position, he better start quickly figuring out how to recant on that, or he wouldn’t win the general election, no way.

It’s not just the extreme positions on abortion that are killing us. The issue itself is a major loser for us in all but rare exceptions. Close to 60% don’t want Roe v Wade overturned, and many would become single issue voters on this if they felt Roe was in real danger of being overturned. As it is, on the (big) margins, there are many voters that consider themselves to be conservative but vote Dem because of abortion. Find away to let that single issue not dominate our politics.

(…) In fact, all the major organ systems are initiated within the first few weeks after conception. The process of embryonic development is a continuous process, with no obvious point at which the fetus magically becomes a “person.” In fact, the development process continues well after birth, including many characteristics that determine our personality or personhood. What are the stages in human embryonic development?

Science tells us that the heart of the human fetus begins to form 18 days after conception. There is a measurable heart beat 21-24 days after conception. This is only 7-10 days after a women would expect to begin her menses. Since most women have cycles that can vary by this amount, they do not discover they are pregnant until after this point. Therefore, all abortions stop a beating heart, even “early” abortions. However, most abortions do not occur until 4-6 weeks after the fetus begins to form. The human brain begins to form on day 23 is formed enough to produce brain waves by 6 weeks, which means that most abortions destroy a functioning human brain.

What if our political approach towards life was more like the Democrats? Democrats claimed to support marriage, gun rights, border security, oppose single payer, but they just moved slowly and denied their ultimate goals.

What if we just moved slowly on life? Would we make more progress, changing the culture slowly, versus trying to get people from point A to point Z in one leap?

anotherJoe: I would rather lose with a pro-life platform than win with a pro-choice one.

And no, I’m not joking. Abortion in cases of rape and other corner cases is still an unjust law, because it punishes an innocent (the child) for the sins of the guilty (the father). The fact that the woman is punished either way has no real bearing on this element.

I think abortion is really quite simple: It should be illegal except for cases of rape and mother’s life in danger (possibly incest too), where it should be a case by case decision (with strong emphasis to having the child and putting it up for adoption, if necessary).

It’s a politically palatable position. Sure, some religions like catholics would want no exceptions, but this is a whole heck lot better than our current law. It keeps the rape exception Republicans get hammered for, and to those on the extreme pro life side, it’s a far better deal than current. Later on, maybe after the culture changes, we can add more restrictions.

But abortions in the case of rape and incest and mother’s life in danger are a very small number, really. As compared to what we have now, I mean.

If you can’t coherently answer a question about this issue what makes you think you are ready for a run for the Presidency? This is the simple predictable stuff that should be easy to answer. It is when a candidate is not prepared we get stupid comments about a woman not getting pregnant during rape because her woman parts shut down or something.

Frankly, I’m disappointed. Between your answer on this and your discussion of amnesty for illegals it seems you are turning into an unprincipled squish and DC already has enough of those.

anotherJoe: I would rather lose with a pro-life platform than win with a pro-choice one…

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Ok, as long as you understand that is what’s going to happen because of that single issue, abortion, we are going to lose. So that a choice you make, it’s abortion or give it all to the socialist future Wealth Taxers, gun grabbers, climate change pushing Dems. Maybe abortion is a quixotic issue because there’s no way we’d actually repeal Roe without a huge (socialist promoting) backlash that would un-overturn it. Think about it.

I haven’t a clue what Rand was trying to say here. His explanation of what his proposed bill says and what he would consider reasonable exceptions to it made no sense at all. It was all gibberish… clear as mud.

The problem is what you had with Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey initially lied about being raped. So there would have to be some legislation about the rape being reported or EVERY woman wanting an abortion would turn into a rape. And then it would go back to being a “war on women.” Look at those Repubs making those poor rape victims report the rapes and being victimized again.

That is the problem with the rape exception on the abortion..It will be abused.

There’s also the fact that if you outlaw abortion except in those cases, I can nearly guarantee you that the number of abortions due to those causes will suddenly, and ‘inexplicably’, jump up.

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

There wouldn’t be a measurable jump because rape and incest can be investigated and, in case of rape, prosecuted, so false claims of either may lead to major legal troubles. Mother’s health exception is a bit more slippery but, unlike the other two, I don’t really see how it’s possible to exist without it.

he should have said he’s pro life, Roe v Wade is the law, NOW how about those trillion dollar deficits and 16T in debt?

RedInMD on March 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Gee how’d that strategy work out for Mitt Romney? I’m not saying that the right has to react like a squirrel in a hailstorm whenever the social issues come up but driving everything back to the economy doesn’t work either.

I realize that he’s an opthamologist but they have to go to medical school too, right? Being asked about exceptions shouldn’t trip him up so badly. At the very least he could throw out the states’ right position.

The idea of legally defining life at conception as legal personhood is electoral suicide for the GOP. When the Democrats point out that some forms of birth control would have to be banned, we would lose.

Umm… So Rand’s position is basically whatever it needs to be for him to get elected in 2016. Hey, remember a few weeks ago when Rand spent thirteen hours on the floor of the Senate filibustering due to his principled opposition for drone strikes? Good to know that it took him exactly two weeks flat to turn from Mr. Smith into a mealy mouthed politician.

Ok, as long as you understand that is what’s going to happen because of that single issue, abortion, we are going to lose. So that a choice you make, it’s abortion or give it all to the socialist future Wealth Taxers, gun grabbers, climate change pushing Dems. Maybe abortion is a quixotic issue because there’s no way we’d actually repeal Roe without a huge (socialist promoting) backlash that would un-overturn it. Think about it.

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

No, Joe it is like everything else. The platform is NOT the problem. See science is on OUR side. Technology advances and actually proves pro-lifers right. It is the Republicans inability to sell the platform and the internal Republicans who sell out the platform principle for votes instead of working on the message and selling the message. I imagine there were people who supported slavery who said no one support overturning it. Please stop fighting it.

anotherJoe: I _would_ give up all of that to remove abortion. Thing is, I don’t have to.

All of this stems from the same issue: the culture that we live in that is addicted to a suicide pact of frenzied meaninglessness. American culture has dismissed any reasonable sense of meaning or purpose, and then they wonder why so many people feel like they’re meaningless or useless.

You apparently do not truly realize that abortion rose as a concomitant issue out of all of this. If abortion is not at least challenged at every point and every turn, you will eventually have the rest of those ‘evils’ you claim (which, while evil, are certainly not as evil as murder.

The right to property is contingent on the right to life, because you must be alive to own property. Therefore, if I must sacrifice one, I sacrifice the first.

There wouldn’t be a measurable jump because rape and incest can be investigated and, in case of rape, prosecuted, so false claims of either may lead to major legal troubles. Mother’s health exception is a bit more slippery but, unlike the other two, I don’t really see how it’s possible to exist without it.

Archivarix on March 20, 2013 at 2:30 PM

The Dems would use that as a way to say Repubs are “raping” women again. Women are being pressured to report their rapes and being investigated just so they can use their reproductive rights. C’mon people play chess not checkers.

I think abortion is really quite simple: It should be illegal except for cases of rape and mother’s life in danger (possibly incest too), where it should be a case by case decision (with strong emphasis to having the child and putting it up for adoption, if necessary).

…

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I think it’s even simpler: Life begins at conception, therefore abortion is taking an innocent life, in all cases.

anotherJoe: I would rather lose with a pro-life platform than win with a pro-choice one.

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Another point though. I don’t think we take a “pro-choice” position. We just don’t take a position if possible, or make it a non-issue. Usually I say it’s good to take a position and a stand (click my name for my blog). Abortion not so much. Seriously. But you don’t want to be transparently wish-washy on it like Romney, either. That was just horrible. So I actually don’t know the full answer to our abortion quandary. Somehow the issue needs to be demoted in the public’s eye.

I agree, the messaging as been horrible on pro-life issues. We’ve had pro-life people continually shooting their-selves in the foot, leading to the election of democrats. I’m pro-life, but it’s not going to be the issue that’s I’m going to decide my vote in 2016. Frankly, I think abortion and social issues will be the least of our concerns in 2016.

I think abortion is really quite simple: It should be illegal except for cases of rape and mother’s life in danger (possibly incest too), where it should be a case by case decision (with strong emphasis to having the child and putting it up for adoption, if necessary).

…

Vanceone on March 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I think it should be much simpler. Only in cases where both the mother and the child’s life are likely to be extinguished in childbirth should an abortion be allowed. If the child can live through the death of the mother, it should have precedence.
Rape and incest should not be allowed as exemptions. No where in the civilized world does anyone argue that the feelings of one person is supreme to the life of another who is innocent.

The problem is what you had with Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey initially lied about being raped. So there would have to be some legislation about the rape being reported or EVERY woman wanting an abortion would turn into a rape. And then it would go back to being a “war on women.” Look at those Repubs making those poor rape victims report the rapes and being victimized again.

That is the problem with the rape exception on the abortion..It will be abused.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Reporting a rape when none occurred is a crime in itself. Not every woman will be willing to gamble when a win means imprisonment for her partner and a loss means imprisonment for herself.

Rape results in, what, something like one-percent or one-half of one-percent of all pregnancies? Something like that.

Which is NOT to minimize the pain and suffering from rape, nor it’s tragic results.

But the pro-abortion folk always assert the issue of pregnancy-from-rape as some justification for them to then willfully take the lives at will of children in the womb, most of it for convenience sake or downright nonsense if the stats are to be believed.

The time for “CHOICE” is before one is pregnant. A woman AND a man chose to create life by chosing to engage in relationship that allows life to be created.

A woman’s “CHOICE” is made, so is a man’s. They resort to abortion because they refuse the responsibility for the choice they made.

I’m not sure we have anyone that can speak to social issues without getting all squirelly, the libs know this and use it to watch a conservative get all tangled up in his underwear…Rand’s incoherent response is disappointing.

Reporting a rape when none occurred is a crime in itself. Not every woman will be willing to gamble when a win means imprisonment for her partner and a loss means imprisonment for herself.

Archivarix on March 20, 2013 at 2:36 PM

When most women can’t see the problem with killing their own offspring excuse me when I don’t see where they would have a problem with lying to the police.

I can assure you there would be some compromise in the Congress that took lying down to a misdemeanor to get this type of legislation passed anyways.

I think our best bet is state by state, education, and our legislature should be out there hammering Gosnell and tarring the leaders of the Dem party including our President with his atrocities. It is what they would do to us.

The right to property is contingent on the right to life, because you must be alive to own property. Therefore, if I must sacrifice one, I sacrifice the first.

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM

That’s a line of reasoning that a lot people don’t share. But regardless, a ton of voters may want our free enterprise system preserved, but they also believe abortion should be legal. They are not going to think about it as philosophically as you do.

anotherJoe: You have no ‘easy’ way out of this. You either oppose abortion in a principled manner, or you will be seen as complicit in it. You also correctly note that ANYthing less than a principled opposition to a political issue leads to charges of waffling, and you are correct that people who waffle on abortion, particularly on the right, are demonized by both sides, and therefore lose elections.

You can focus on fiscal issues, and perhaps we should for the present. I’m never voting for a pro-choice candidate, though, no matter what else they say. And I am hardly alone on that issue.

At least Rand is willing to fight abortion, that’s more than most Republicans are doing today. Treating pro-life as dirty words seems to be the new thing among Republicans.

midgeorgian on March 20, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I’m sorry but I don’t get where Rand Paul is willing to fight abortion. Even Nancy Pelosi declares herself to be pro-life.

Paul is trying to have it both ways. He’s presented a bill that is apt to go nowhere and certainly isn’t going to prevail in overturning Roe v. Wade. He’s building a resume of proposed legislation aimed at street cred among conservatives not changing the law. At the same time he’s signaling that essentially every decision to abort is some kind of exception- how could it not be with the criteria for exempting starts with “decisions made privately by families and their doctors?”

I would even argue that these exceptions indicate that Paul wouldn’t object to gender-based decisions about when to abort because that too would be a private decision.

In the end, I’m less concerned where Paul actually comes down on the issue of exceptions than the utter incoherence in his response.

That is the problem with the rape exception on the abortion..It will be abused.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Reporting a rape when none occurred is a crime in itself. Not every woman will be willing to gamble when a win means imprisonment for her partner and a loss means imprisonment for herself.

Archivarix on March 20, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I was raped by a giy who is and was a practicing physician — and who gave me, without my knowledge, that “date rape” drug in a glass of lemonade on an evening when he claimed, as my doctor (at that time), I just had to come by his office to get something from him…

I didn’t report it because I lacked confidence I’d ever be believed that such a person would and did do such a thing.

The after effects:

– great regret and shame that he almost certainly repeated his activity upon others as he had upon me, that I hadn’t reported it;

– loss of self esteem for not reporting it much moreso for being gullible and never doubting anyone could or would ever do such a thing from a position of trust as he had;

I do feel badly at never having reported what happened but I still, to this day, do think I’d have had an (added) difficult time of it with disbelieving authorities, given the man’s place in society.

Rape is a horrible assault, pregnancy from it is a traumatic event but it does not excuse taking the life of a child. I am just grateful to God that I did not have to contend with a pregnancy from that assault I experienced, but, still, I would not be eager to encourage abortion afterward.

The Dems would use that as a way to say Repubs are “raping” women again. Women are being pressured to report their rapes and being investigated just so they can use their reproductive rights. C’mon people play chess not checkers.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Today, Dems are pressuring women to report rape as often as possible, and always support the widest interpretation of rape. Heck, there was a precedent (in Israel, but they often look to us for court guidance) of a rape accusation resulting in a conviction based on the fact that the man failed to satisfy the “victim” and therefore her consent was withdrawn mid-process. So accusing Republicans of it would be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black; I know, the media will carry their water, but they have much easier and juicier targets to bash.

And for all of you making the “rape exception,” please tell me why an early term or a late term abortion is necessary at all now a days? Isn’t plan B available now OTC? (And yes I know that is an abortificient, but it is the lesser of the evils and usually resolves the issue before a heartbeat and brainwaves).. So the rape exception is really bunk since most “rapes” can be taken care of via plan b..

I’m definitely pro-Life yet there are medical conditions of pregnancy (comparatively rare) where the mother’s life can be endangered or lost without surgical intervention. Doctors often have to deal with making the best of bad situations.

There are such things as ectopic pregnancies (tubal implantation) and teratomas (severe mutations not so much alive as replicating) which if ignored could be fatal. Therefore the physician must advise a course where the mother’s survival must be preserved at the loss of the baby because if the mother dies most likely would the baby. These are not common circumstances and medical science may someday figure out a way to effectively do an embryonic transplant from a Fallopian tube over to the uterus where gestation normally occurs.

Sometimes an abdominal pregnancy can occur where the baby implants and gestates attached to the abdominal wall and in those cases carefully managed the baby can develop normally and be delivered by c-section.

So, Dr. Paul likely is trying to convey that in medicine abnormal pregnancies may require different courses of action yet stating such is far from an endorsement of the genocidal culture of convenience called the abortion industry.

I’m sorry but I don’t get where Rand Paul is willing to fight abortion.

How many Republicans with 2016 are willing to tie their name to an abortion bill? While this was a rough answer by Paul, at least he’s not ignoring the issue. Many Republicans are overreacting to reaction of Akin and Murdoch’s comments and cowarding away from the issue.

anotherJoe: If they don’t share the reasoning, then they are, logically, idiots. Perhaps they are. That does not change my behavior.

If you accept that there is such a thing as a right to property, and another thing as a right to life, and that the thing called ‘a right to property’ only applies to the living, you must logically concede that the right to property is contingent on the right to life.

Archivarix: Do you think PP, of all entities, would quibble over this? If abortion was banned except in cases of , PP will just create a new worksheet with checkboxes for each reason, check whatever one the female in question says, and perform the abortion.

PP doesn’t follow the required reporting laws _right now_. Why do you think that they would going forward?

So, Dr. Paul likely is trying to convey that in medicine abnormal pregnancies may require different courses of action yet stating such is far from an endorsement of the genocidal culture of convenience called the abortion industry.

viking01 on March 20, 2013 at 2:45 PM

He SHOULD understand the distinction of discussing medical issues in private with a patient given the patient’s specific complaint/s from making a public speech to the nation about legislation concerns.

How horrible. You became a survivor and that is what is important. I am also a rape survivor. I had a scare after mine where I was ‘late.” I decided not to abort and then I wasn’t pregnant. I later had the pleasure of meeting other women who were raped, and a few who had had abortions after their rapes. I got the sense that they had tremendous guilt from it and felt that the abortion victimized them again, but that is what a lot of women who go through abortion feel.

I’m not sure we have anyone that can speak to social issues without getting all squirelly, the libs know this and use it to watch a conservative get all tangled up in his underwear…Rand’s incoherent response is disappointing.

RedInMD on March 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Rand Paul is the squirrel on this issue. Conservatives can’t avoid discussing social issues but they don’t have to be ambiguous either. Mitt Romney let the war on women thing fester for too long when he could have responded to the HHS mandate part of his enemy’s propaganda by saying that while access to contraception is an important issue the religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution can’t be trampled in the process.

Likewise, conservatives have to stop using the terminology of the left. Illegal alien is a legal status not a slur against Hispanics- use it to describe those in this nation without resident alien status! It’s not a path to citizenship or “earned” citizenship, it’s preferential treatment for illegal aliens over those seeking legal immigration status. They don’t have to be mean when they say it but I’m sick and tired of seeing so-called conservatives trip all over themselves trying to support amnesty without using the “A” word. Far better for them to recognize that there are those in this nation illegally and stake out a position that whatever is decided about this group it must do no harm to those who have obeyed our laws.

I would rather lose with a pro-life platform than win with a pro-choice one…

Scott H on March 20, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Me too. Winning with a pro-abortion platform means you voted for a liberal democrat. Even if you voted Republican.

Ok, as long as you understand that is what’s going to happen because of that single issue, abortion, we are going to lose. So that a choice you make, it’s abortion or give it all to the socialist future Wealth Taxers, gun grabbers, climate change pushing Dems. Maybe abortion is a quixotic issue because there’s no way we’d actually repeal Roe without a huge (socialist promoting) backlash that would un-overturn it. Think about it.

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Really?! Because “moderate” wishy-washy republicans who have barely even mentioned abortion have done so well in the past two presidential elections, right?!

How horrible. You became a survivor and that is what is important. I am also a rape survivor. I had a scare after mine where I was ‘late.” I decided not to abort and then I wasn’t pregnant. I later had the pleasure of meeting other women who were raped, and a few who had had abortions after their rapes. I got the sense that they had tremendous guilt from it and felt that the abortion victimized them again, but that is what a lot of women who go through abortion feel.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:49 PM

The creep, the man who raped me, even had the “audacity of hope” to CALL ME the next day and offer to give me the abortion pill (R-whatever it’s called) if I’d “come by his office that afternoon”…(since he was/is a doctor and all)…

I’m sorry you, too, had that experience. It happens more than it’s ever reported, I know and I know from my own experience that many women who are victims of rape don’t report it because to do so is to undergo even more antagonism.

As it is, on the (big) margins, there are many voters that consider themselves to be conservative but vote Dem because of abortion. Find away to let that single issue not dominate our politics.

anotherJoe on March 20, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I don’t believe this is true. Technological advances favor the pro-life position. New immigrants favor the pro-life position. There are other issues in which social trends do not seem to be in socons favor. there’s no need for them to abandon the one where they are winning. (and yes, I said long term trends, not within a few months of a national election where the Todd Akins of the world managed to make all pro-lifers look stupid.)

He SHOULD understand the distinction of discussing medical issues in private with a patient given the patient’s specific complaint/s from making a public speech to the nation about legislation concerns.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Rand Paul no doubt realizes by now he will be under the microscope for anything he says now that he has cast himself as the opposition not only to Ogabe and his media whores and Old Network goons but also the feckless GOP establishment fossils. There will be those whom will parse anything he says or doesn’t say to cause Rand Paul political harm. That is not to say he shouldn’t be more careful or precise in his statements.

Given that understanding and also an understanding that our union skools have poorly educated the populace there exist pregnancy complications which create rare, I repeat rare, exceptions where medical intervention must occur to preserve the life of the mother.

I’m sorry you, too, had that experience. It happens more than it’s ever reported, I know and I know from my own experience that many women who are victims of rape don’t report it because to do so is to undergo even more antagonism.

Lourdes on March 20, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I didn’t report mine either. I didn’t even tell my parents for a year. Obviously that would have changed if I was pregnant. It took me years to understand that it wasn’t my fault. I probably could have mitigated the risk, but the actual rape was not my fault. I was 14 years old and a virgin when it happened. I think women need more REAL advocates for them, and that means telling the truth about what abortion actually is- and that it victimizes the woman too.

That is the problem with the rape exception on the abortion..It will be abused.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:28 PM

That is small potatoes compared to stopping or reducing the (far higher) number of abortions performed every day that have nothing to do with rape. It’s like saying this medicine is 95% effective but should not be allowed because it isn’t effective for everyone.

Rape/incest exceptions are popular and have some basis in reality, emotional or otherwise. Focus elsewhere to gain the kind of majority that changes laws.

I know, and fully agree. That strengthen my opinion that, were rape exclusion available, it won’t be (ab)used too much – even in cases where rape, in fact, did occur.

Archivarix on March 20, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Lourdes is talking about someone who actually has been raped having trouble reporting it, because they feel REVICTIMIZED. We are talking about a law that makes it mandatory to report a rape to get an abortion, and you are saying that wouldn’t be abused by people who haven’t been raped– I think it will. Roe of Roe v. Wade initially lied about being raped. And the Dems will use the opportunity to say that we are revictimizing these women just so they can use their “contraceptive rights.”

Rape/incest exceptions are popular and have some basis in reality, emotional or otherwise. Focus elsewhere to gain the kind of majority that changes laws.

alwaysfiredup on March 20, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Then be honest about it. We are going to ban all but incest and rape as well as verifiable risk of life of the mother. But in the end, we plan to ban even those. Leaving the only option for abortion to be verifiable evidence that both the mother and child will die unless an abortion is performed.

I didn’t report mine either. I didn’t even tell my parents for a year. Obviously that would have changed if I was pregnant. It took me years to understand that it wasn’t my fault. I probably could have mitigated the risk, but the actual rape was not my fault. I was 14 years old and a virgin when it happened. I think women need more REAL advocates for them, and that means telling the truth about what abortion actually is- and that it victimizes the woman too.

melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 2:58 PM

It’s a disgusting and traumatic event to even have to know about much moreso to experience it, as you (and I) had the misfortune of discovering.

What happened to me was my first experience at being drugged by — of all people — a guy who was one of my ongoing doctors (not after that event, however). Until then, I’d been unaware that such behavior even occurred. I went to his office in the evening at his request with a happy attitude and trust and have always regretted not trying to report it afterward because of the obvious assumption: that he’s almost certainly done that before and since to others.